ATTP :

You said it yourself - "under the most extreme scenario." Again, please explain why you would expect this to form the basis for a mature and rational discussion on a blog where most of the denizens are of a skeptical nature whose first instinct - with valid reasons I might add - is to argue those numbers.

You also omitted to mention that the actual inconvenient empirical data shows sea level rise currently proceeding at a rate of 1-3mm per year - depending on whose analysis you believe - with no actual indication of acceleration. That projects to a rise of 9-30 cm by the end of the century - about half what the IPCC claim.

Unless, or until, that changes, everything else is mere speculation...

Radical,

Have you not noticed that it is just you, EM, Raff and a few others who find this true?

Grow up a little, and try to engage in more polite ways; you actually might have valid points for others to mull over, but, up to the present, if you do, you keep them well concealed under layers of bile.

Anything,

Again, please explain why you would expect this to form the basis for a mature and rational discussion on a blog where most of the denizens are of a skeptical nature whose first instinct - with valid reasons I might add - is to argue those numbers.

You also omitted to mention that the actual inconvenient empirical data shows sea level rise currently proceeding at a rate of 1-3mm per year - depending on whose analysis you believe - with no actual indication of acceleration. That projects to a rise of 9-30 cm by the end of the century - about half what the IPCC claim.

FWIW, projecting past trends into the future is not a particularly good way to determine what might happen.

Well, that's your theory ATTP, and one that seems to be embraced by a considerable section of the climate science community.

However, the scientific method demands that it remains a mere theory until it is validated by real-world empirical evidence. And the jury's still out on that one.

Anything,

However, the scientific method demands that it remains a mere theory until it is validated by real-world empirical evidence.

So, what you really seem to be saying is that we should ignore any scientific prediction/projection and simply wait to see what actually happens. Well, okay, but then we probably shouldn't bother doing the calculations in the first place. That then begs the question of why we bother doing science at all. If we can't/don't use it to understand how systems like our climate might evolve, what does that say about us as a supposedly scientifically advanced society. Also, if we ignore scientific predictions/projections because we'd rather simply wait, that does rather suggest that we've assumed that any severe consequences are sufficiently unlikely that they can be ignored. We'd have to hope that this is indeed the case.

We ignore scientific projections all the time and it's a good thing we do or we'd be broke and cowering under the table by now. Every scientist demands we take their science seriously, despite the ifs and possiblys that litter their evidence. The least of our problems if the worst case of every science came true, would be rising sea level from CO2 warming. Why should we panic more about sea level rise than any other catastrophe?

Contrary to many warmist arguments, mankind is very good at balancing short term and long term risks. We're still here and we're at the top of the tree. Nobody does planning better than us. If we were too nervous we'd still be in Africa hunting with spears or in the sea looking at the land and thinking what a scary place it looks. We a genetically programmed to look at the risks and sometimes take a gamble. If new information arrives, we re-evaluate.

So if mankind isn't taking AGW and sea level rise seriously it's because the evidence is poor. EM, ATTP and Richard Betts are yet to explain why sea level rises would end civilisation.

Checking in as promised at 19:15.

It seems that Entropic has quit the field before the discussion really began.

And without posting a single substantive remark relevant to the motion he proposed. In a format he had chosen. In a place he had proposed.

I won't flatter myself that he read my opening contribution, was so dazzled by its insight and brilliance and gave up as a hopeless cause.

He did make a point of asserting that 'this would be a good test of both our abilities to debate science'

I'm here, happy to continue. Entropic has disappeared

I leave other observers to draw their own conclusions.

ATTP posits that slr will depend on CO2 emissions.
Yet we have ~150 years of steadily increasing CO2 and slr is about the same, ~3mms per year throughout the record.
ATTP is making what can be called an assertion in search of some factual support

Yet we have ~150 years of steadily increasing CO2 and slr is about the same, ~3mms per year throughout the record.

Note to others who may wish to continue the debate in Entropic's absence.

The motion he originally proposed is:

'This house regards sea level rise as a threat to civilisation'

and it was subsequently modified to include 'within 100 years' and 'between 0.5 and 2.0 meters'.

STM that the crucial point to discuss is the 'threat (or not) to civilisation. It is not the minutiae of whether the SLR will be 8 inches or 4 feet.

It is whether either of those truly constitute a 'threat to civilisation' and why.

My view, as laid out earlier, is that it will be a nuisance. But even a major nuisance is not a threat to civilisation.

The proposition fails.

When will you admit that, though the emissions continue to increase, the rate of warming isn’t? NASA, NOAA, the UKMO, and the IPCC admit that warming has plateaued, and has done for over 18 years (or 26, depending upon which metric you use) yet you refuse to.

What empirical evidence is there that this is going to lead to thermageddon and beyond?

The thing is, none of these “scientific predictions/projections” has yet come remotely near to reality; why should we believe them on your say-so?

I'd be more worried about this problem than either rising sealevels or the millennium bug.

ATTP
Have you got any better data than these for rising sealevels?

http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/2008GL033611.pdf

http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/jevrejevaetal2008.php#sthash.TMszKs2b.dpuf

Source data
http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/gslGRL2008.txt

Hope you don't get upset by more than one link.

So EM has thrown the towel in at the first round, Richard Betts launches one of his drive by's and ATTP won't put up or shut up.
Sounds like a normal day at Bishop Hill's, thought at least someone might have put some effort into arguing the indefensible. A true reflection of the actual science I do believe.

Sandy,
Maybe you could clarify the point you're making with those links. Seem broadly fine to me. The abstract of the paper says

We provide observational evidence that sea level acceleration up to the present has been about 0.01 mm/yr2 and appears to have started at the end of the 18th century. ...... If the conditions that established the acceleration continue, then sea level will rise 34 cm over the 21st century. Long time constants in oceanic heat content and increased ice sheet melting imply that the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of sea level are probably too low.

ATTP,
Thank you for the clarification.
The info you provided seems to show even less cause for worry in re: slr.
Welcome to the dark side ;^)

Yet another retreat by "and then there's bullshit". His sobriquet is well chosen. His command of rhetoric is marginally worse than mann and uncle Steph and big Kevin.

Reply to aTTP talking about Aslak Grinsted.

Some years ago, I intervened to try and get AG to debate with Willis E on WUWT. He declined, saying that he would be treated harshly. I insisted that he would be heard out, if he just argued the science. Eventually, he agreed.

He started proceedings with "Man up, Willis..."

Needless to say, nothing productive came out of it.

As an aside, AG has bought property in the low-lying Amager district of Copenhagen. With all his knowledge of glaciology, and his belief in ever-rising sea levels, he bought the flat, then wanted to stop CO2 emissions to protect his investment.

You might think that AG is a plonker. I couldn't possibly comment.

Martin A (-: Truly terrifying!! Got any data on its regional impacts? Who goes first? Exeter?? :-)